MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886653333 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.3437

La conciliation assurée par le centre : le rôle du Conseil d’État en France

2018· article· fr· W2886653333 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Olivier Pluen

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEuropean Political History Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

« Miraculeux ! », tel est l’un des qualificatifs applicables au Conseil d’État français. En effet, créé en l’an VIII par Napoléon Bonaparte pour structurer les relations entre un pouvoir politique autoritaire et son Administration, celui-ci s’est progressivement émancipé à partir du XIXe siècle. Or, s’appuyant sur son « dualisme fonctionnel », caractérisé par la coexistence de compétences contentieuses et consultatives, l’institution s’est imposée comme une interface à la fois originale et évolutive dans les rapports politico-administratifs. Le présent article tente ainsi de cerner l’action du Conseil d’État à travers une étude en trois temps. Le Conseil d’État s’est d’abord fondé, directement ou indirectement, sur des mécanismes de Hard Law pour assurer la séparation de l’Administration du pouvoir politique. En contrepartie, il s’est longtemps astreint à une situation de dépendance formelle vis-à-vis du même pouvoir, privilégiant une indépendance reposant sur de la Soft Law. Et cette dernière – principalement par la promotion de la déontologie – est désormais mise en avant par le Conseil d’État pour tenter de (re)légitimer l’Administration…

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.010
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicEuropean Political History AnalysisFrench-language works237,207